1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 17 May 2016 b. Date Received: 30 January 2017 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of her general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in pertinent part and in effect, she received an Article 15 four months after the incident that led to her discharge. She takes full responsibility for her actions. She was drinking heavily to bottle her emotions as it appeared that her life was going downhill, since the passing of her grandmother in September and her eight-month-old brother in December 2014. A day after completing her extra duty, she was reprimanded for speeding on post. Subsequently, she was informed of her impending involuntarily separation proceedings. Her request for a rehabilitation transfer was denied, although the commander and first sergeant from a different unit requested to have her transfer to their company. During a field exercise, while her whole company was out in the field except for those on profile, and while performing as her first sergeant's track commander (TC) in the field, he asked her a lot of personal questions. He shared his personal life with her, and that his wife was overseas teaching and he was home alone. He informed her of where he lived-it was in the same neighborhood where she lived. They stayed at the company alone without any female NCOs or any other Soldiers. He told her that if she wanted to stay in his Army, she "would have to have sex with him," and if she told anyone, "he would ruin [her] career because he was a [first sergeant] and she was a [private], and his word weigh[ed] more than [hers]." Not wanting to be separated, she agreed but told him that she was still bleeding because of a miscarriage two weeks prior. Being at the lowest point of her life after losing her child and in the midst of losing her career, her last hope was to stay in the Army. After the field exercise, her first sergeant sought to see her in his office. She informed him then that she had stopped bleeding but refused going through it with him because she did not feel comfortable or trusted him. He responded with a laugh and held up her packet. He told her to enjoy the plane ride home. Her heart dropped, because she could not tell a soul. She is finally speaking out about it now, because she feels safe, since the first sergeant had been relieved of his duties. When she was discharged, she was informed that her discharge would be upgraded to honorable and she would receive all of her benefits. All she wanted from the Army was to go to school; however, she was denied her Post 9/11 GI Bill. Per the Board's Medical Officer, based on the information available for review at the time to include the military electronic medical record, there is insufficient evidence to determine if the applicant had a medical or behavioral health condition that was mitigating for the offenses which led to her separation from the Army. In summary, there was no clear basis of separation in SMs medical records and there was no information regarding MST. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 13 June 2018, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 16 October 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: NIF (3) Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 27 August 2015 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 23 January 2014 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / HS Graduate / 89 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-2 / 92A10, Automated Logistical Specialist / 1 year, 8 months, 24 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Hawaii / None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM; GWOTSM; ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Discharge Orders i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None / NA j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: Report of Medical History, dated 8 May 2015, indicates the applicant and the examiner noted behavioral health issues and treatment. Applicant's documentary evidence: "After Visit Summary" health records, dated 4 January 2017, and 19 December 2016, show instructions for continued medication for "anxiety and PTSD," and ongoing health conditions of "Posttraumatic Stress Disorder" and Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent Episode." 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge), dated 17 May 2016; self-authored essay; request for legal action cover sheet; first page of rebuttal to involuntary separation, dated 5 August 2015; FLAG action, dated 1 December 2014; Article 15 Worksheet; three counseling statements; Report of Medical Assessment, dated 8 May 2015; Report of Medical History, dated 8 May 2015; page 3 of Report of Medical Examination; two medical records, dated 4 January 2017, and 19 December 2016; CG Article 15, dated 1 April 2015; email correspondence, dated 30 August 2016; three memoranda of support, dated 6 and 12 August 2015; eight Requests for References with character reference statements; and self-authored statement. Additional evidence: DD Form 2910 (Victim Reporting Preference Statement), dated 21 December 2017 (electing an unrestricted reporting). 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None provided with her application. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or being absent without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. Army policy states that an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate; however, a general, under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may be granted. Paragraph 14-12c states a Soldier is subject to action per this section for commission of a serious military or civilian offense, if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge is, or would be, authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts-Martial. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of "JKQ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, Misconduct (Serious Offense). The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKQ" will be assigned an RE Code of 3. National Defense Authorization Act 2017 provided specific guidance to the Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards when considering discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) in connection with combat or sexual assault or sexual harassment as a basis for discharge review. Further, it provided that Boards will include, as a voting board member, a physician trained in mental health disorders, a clinical psychologist, or a psychiatrist when the discharge upgrade claim asserts a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; as a basis for the discharge. In August 2017, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness provided further clarifying guidance to the Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Liberal consideration will be given to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on matters relating to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations that document a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in a less than honorable discharge characterization. Special consideration will also be given in cases where a civilian provider confers diagnoses of a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment if the case records contain narratives supporting symptomatology at the time of service or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment existed at the time of discharge might have mitigated the misconduct that caused a discharge of lesser characterization. Conditions documented in the service record that can reasonably be determined to have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge. In cases in which a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge, those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the characterization of service in question. All Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a less than Honorable characterization of service. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat related PTSD, PTSD-related conditions due to TBI or sexual assault/harassment as causative factors in the misconduct resulting in discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct. PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct. Caution shall be exercised in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of her general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant's available record of service, and the issues and documents submitted with her application were carefully reviewed. The applicant's record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to her discharge from the Army. However, the applicant's record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was digitally authenticated by the applicant's signature, and the separation authority's decision memorandum. The DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, by reason of "Misconduct (Serious Offense), with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). Barring evidence to the contrary, it appears that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The applicant contends that she received an Article 15 for an incident that occurred four months prior; that when she was reprimanded for speeding on post, a day after completing her extra duty punishment, she was informed of her impending separation proceedings; that her request for rehabilitative transfer was denied; and that her first sergeant informed her to enjoy the plane ride home while holding up her separation packet after she refused to have sex with him. However, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs that shall be applied in any review unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. The applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support her issues. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced sufficient evidence to support the contention that she may have been unjustly discharged. The applicant's statements alone do not overcome the government's presumption of regularity and no additional corroborating and supporting documentation or further sufficient evidence has been provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge. Furthermore, her contention that her first sergeant making a sexual ultimatum with him so that she would stay in the Army, the service record contains no report of an investigative nature and the applicant did not provide any documentary evidence to support this issue. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it would be her responsibility to meet the burden of proof and provide the appropriate documents (i.e., the complete discharge packet, an investigative report of any sexual advances, connotations, or favors made by her superior(s) in exchange for her to remain in the Army, etc.) or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board's consideration because they are not available in the official record. The applicant contends she is entitled to an upgrade of her discharge because of mitigating circumstances which contributed to her misconduct. Specifically, she claims losing her eight- month old brother and grandmother brought her to the lowest point in her life and she drank heavily to bottle up her emotions, and subsequently, losing her child through miscarriage, led to her discharge. While the applicant may believe her stated issues were the underlying cause of her misconduct, the record of evidence does not demonstrate that she sought relief through her command or the numerous Army community services like the Chaplain, Army Community and Family Support Services, Community Counseling Center, and other medical resources available to all Soldiers. The applicant's issue about an automatic upgrade so that she may receive all her benefits, was carefully considered. However, the US Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges. Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant submits a DD Form 293 requesting a change in discharge. Changes may be warranted if the Board determines the characterization of service or the reasons for discharge, or both, were improper or inequitable. The applicant contends that an upgrade of her discharge would allow educational benefits through the use of the GI Bill. However, eligibility for veterans' benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant's character and performance. However, the persons providing the character reference statements were not in a position to fully understand or appreciate the expectations of the applicant's chain of command. As such, none of these statements provide any evidence sufficiently compelling to overcome the presumption of government regularity. Although the applicant did not directly present her health issues, a careful review of her available record and documentary evidence indicates the applicant's behavioral health issues symptoms existed. If the Board determines the applicant's behavioral health issues were significant contributing factors to her misconduct, it can grant appropriate relief by changing the reason for separation and/or the characterization of service. Based on the available record, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. 9. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 13 June 2018, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / Issue a New Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change Authority to: No Change e. Change SPD / RE Code to: No Change Authenticating Official: Legend: AWOL - Absent Without Leave GD - General Discharge NCO - Noncommissioned Officer SCM - Summary Court Martial BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge HS - High School NIF - Not in File SPCM - Special Court Martial BH - Behavioral Health HD - Honorable Discharge NOS - Not Otherwise Specified SPD - Separation Program Designator CG - Company Grade Article 15 IADT - Initial Active Duty Training OAD - Ordered to Active Duty TBI - Traumatic Brain Injury CID - Criminal Investigation Division MP - Military Police OMPF - Official Military Personnel File UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge ELS - Entry Level Status MST - Military Sexual Trauma PTSD - Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions FG - Field Grade Article 15 NA - Not applicable RE - Reentry VA - Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20170001528 1